Pages

Wednesday, May 14, 2008

My mom sent me a text last night that, at first, I thought was spam. "Check out my free implants . com!" So I did, and this is what I found out.

The basic premise of this website is that there are women out there who want cosmetic surgery, breast implants, to be specific, who can't afford it. The website states that its goal is two bring together two groups of people:

Women that have a strong desire to enhance their physical appearance through cosmetic surgery.

Benefactors who wish to help these women improve their self esteem and confidence through cosmetic surgery.

The women who are seeking surgeries can set up profiles with information including their names (or aliases), short biographies, physical attributes, and what procedures they desire.

Along with your bio you can upload an unlimited number of pictures of yourself. These pictures are one of the key components towards achieving your goals. (emphasis mine)

The Benefactors, it seems, are supposed to be men (although not stated explicitly), and they can buy message credits in order to send messages to the women seeking cosmetic surgeries. These benefactors then help the women earn credit for their procedures.

And remember... the best part is seeing the newly transformed ladies after the surgery when they return to the website to post pictures of the results. You can take pride in knowing that you helped her improve her self esteem and self image!

That is where my main problem lies. I can just not get down with the idea that these women are going to owe the self-confidence and sense of self-worth that they gain from these procedures to other people (most likely men).

I understand that the Benefactors do not necessarily have to be men, but the feeling I got from this website was very heteronormative (if anyone disagrees, please comment!). Anyway, I have major problems with women, and people in general, basing so much of their self-worth on the opinions/desires of others instead of on their own accomplishments and talents.

In the FAQ section of the website, the question "Do I have to pose naked?" was asked. The answer:

Not at all. The content of the pictures you post is entirely up to you. Some ladies choose to reward donors with sexy photos, and the range of "sexy photos" varies greatly from person to person.

Another question, "Who will see my pictures?," garnered the response:

The pictures you submit to the site can be viewed by any active benefactor member. Viewing photos however requires a login and password so that your photos are not viewable on a public website. Keep in mind that the more members that see your pictures the sooner you will reach your goals. (emphasis mine)

This site just does not sit right with me. It promotes this messed up idea of women easily getting what they want through being "sexy" by emphasizing the importance of pictures. It also seems to reinforce the idea of these women "owing" their new sense of worth/confidence not to anything of their own doing, but to the people who donated money, and that's really not a sustainable base for something as important as self-worth.

This site just really rubs me the wrong way, despite the positive message it tries to send.

28 comments:

Leslie
said...

Cosmetic surgery is becoming more and more extreme... what's next? Stripping for a sex change?

I don't agree with cosmetic surgery and believe it should be used only for reconstructive purposes. I'm amazed that you so called femminists are for cosmetic surgery when in fact it helps degrade and objectify women further.

Personally, I agree with you, that cosmetic surgery should only be for reconstructive purposes. I would never have it for any reason other than that, but that doesn't mean I am willing to proclaim that every woman who has purely cosmetic surgery is doing it for attention/potential mates/etc.

And just so you know, this post was written by one "so called" feminist, and my words are not indicative of the entire group.

I'm not sure how much of a positive message it sends; I'm not a big fan of the concept "you'll have better self confidence once you fix something!" Why can't they donate money to change the culture that glorifies boob jobs? That way people don't have to modify their bodies AND they love themselves.

I am not going to debate the "feminist" implications of boob jobs, namely, whether or not someone that has their tits done can be a feminist.

Although, we constantly remark, as a basic tenement of feminism, that the body dimorphism for females--airbrushed models, eating disorders, makeup, restrictive clothing, and now plastic surgery--is not at all healthy and has convinced women that their natural bodies are wrong while the plastic images of perfection are right.

This is yet another facet in the female performance. Not only are females encouraged to be plastic facsimiles of themselves, this website offers women the opportunity to further objectify themselves in order to do so.

This is sick and wrong. The men who kid themselves by thinking that they are "benefactors" with their turgid pricks in hand helping women change their bodies to something other than nature intended should take a long hard look at themselves.

If they were really interested in charity, perhaps they should look at sending that money over to women who need reconstructive surgery after breast cancer has wasted their bodies. Then they should give freely without demanding a cheap thrill and a body to objectify.

There is a huge difference between soap and hair dye and invasive medical procedures. Of course, a breast job is medically unnecessary and risky, and focuses solely on enhancing "sexual" parts of a woman's body.

We can claim that painting your nails and dying your hair is "art". It is all worthy to notice that those beauty rituals are not gender exclusive--men can, and do, paint their nails and dye their hair.

However, men cannot have breast augmentations, at least for not the same effect that women do. This fact, coupled with the risky nature of the procedure, makes a boob job a very gendered procedure, and open to feminist critique.

There is a huge difference between soap and hair dye and invasive medical procedures. Of course, a breast job is medically unnecessary and risky, and focuses solely on enhancing "sexual" parts of a woman's body.

Ah, but you said that it was "outside of what nature intended". My point was: So are lots of things. Almost everything you see, touch, smell, hear or taste on a daily basis, is "outside of what nature intended".

-men can, and do, paint their nails and dye their hair.

Men that paint their nails aren't really my concern, considering it's mostly a bunch of 13-15 year old teen kids with black polish trying to be "rebellious" and "cool", and ending up looking stupid and overly feminine.

However, men cannot have breast augmentations, at least for not the same effect that women do.

Actually, as I've read it, male pectoral implants have gone up in frequency over the last 5-10 years.

Which is for the same effect. To enhance a region of the body in order to be more physically appealing to the opposite sex, or to enhance one's own self confidence about their body.

This fact, coupled with the risky nature of the procedure, makes a boob job a very gendered procedure, and open to feminist critique.

According to feminists, everything is subject to your biased brand of critique.

You can critique it all you like, but really, you can only do so on a personal basis. Whether or not you'd do it personally. It is not, and will never be, up to you to decide what other women should do.

I far too often see feminists that want to be just as controlling as the men they claim to fight against. They want women to do exactly what they think they should.

Which is just as misogynist as they claim men are.

Regardless, I still don't care for the (conscious or otherwise) jab at what men are attracted to.

You can't alter what you're interested in. It's not men's faults that certain things are preferable physically. It just so happens that we have the technology to change certain things.

I'm sure if there was a surgery to make men taller, quite a few women would prefer that their partner get it.

At the end of the day, though, humans are a visual species. Part of being a living creature in a binary gender species, that reproduces sexually, is attracting a mate.

When you couple that with being a visual species, physical traits are going to be used for attracting said mate, at least initially.

You can get angry at that, but that's not society, that's biology.

Nobody approaches someone in a bar, or wherever else, because they think that person is probably a wonderful conversationalist.

Animals do it, and humans are animals. Just because you can think and walk on two legs doesn't make you a magic thing separate from the rest of the animal kingdom.

"I can just not get down with the idea that these women are going to owe the self-confidence and sense of self-worth that they gain from these procedures to other people (most likely men)."

In my experience, women who have used men to attain things that they desire do not feel the slightest bit of gratitude. There's no legal agreement in place to force the women to do anything, either. Chances are, the women will do the bare minimum necessary to collect the cash, get the boob job, and move on, giving nary a thought to the men that made this possible. It is typical behavior.

Nature intends for women to have large breasts. Research published by a Harvard University researcher along with collaborators in 2007 ("Large breasts and narrow waists indicate high reproductive potential in women", Grazyna Jasienska1, Anna Ziomkiewicz, Peter T. Ellison, Susan F. Lipson and Inger Thune) show that women with large breasts are three times as fertile as women with small breasts. This is indicative of evolutionary fitness. This is what nature intends ideally for women, and this is why men desire such women. Women with small breasts fall short of what nature intends.

I am not saying what is right/wrong, but there is a huge difference in saying that women who were born with small breasts are somehow unnatural, and saying that people who decide to change their bodies is unnatural.

What are the implications of both of those things? What did the author intend to say?

Ennui--"Men that paint their nails aren't really my concern, considering it's mostly a bunch of 13-15 year old teen kids with black polish trying to be "rebellious" and "cool", and ending up looking stupid and overly feminine."

You know you just used "feminine" as an insult, right? That doesn't make me want to take you seriously.

"I far too often see feminists that want to be just as controlling as the men they claim to fight against. They want women to do exactly what they think they should.

Which is just as misogynist as they claim men are."

Out come the teeth and the accusation that we're misogynist. At least we did not use "feminine" as an insult.

"When you couple that with being a visual species, physical traits are going to be used for attracting said mate, at least initially.

You can get angry at that, but that's not society, that's biology."

I suppose now that all things that women do to make themselves pretty are natural and biologically logical. I am very apt to call bullshit on just writing off commentary on the grounds of someone pulling the "biology" card. You can say that we are visual and want to attract mates all you want, but you have not provided any sort of factual evidence on how the deliberate mutilation of the human body is something coded into our genome.

Anonymous A--"In my experience, women who have used men to attain things that they desire do not feel the slightest bit of gratitude. There's no legal agreement in place to force the women to do anything, either. Chances are, the women will do the bare minimum necessary to collect the cash, get the boob job, and move on, giving nary a thought to the men that made this possible. It is typical behavior."

I'm supposed to be grateful that someone treats me like a piece of meat? That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard of. These women are letting men oogle at them like a bunch of pigs only to turn around and sink all of their hard-earned cash into an invasive surgery to make them more attractive to men. In short, these women are doing nothing to serve themselves, and doing everything in the interests of making themselves sexually available and attractive to men. And they're supposed to be grateful? Please.

Anonymous B--"This is what nature intends ideally for women, and this is why men desire such women. Women with small breasts fall short of what nature intends."

How is what nature gives us, our natural breasts, not what "nature intends". Please, you and some researchers at Harvard are not God. Furthermore, while Harvard might have found a link between large breasts and fertility, they still have not found a link between small breasts and some sort of horrible mutation of "what nature intends".

Also, how in the hell are fake breasts supposed to enhance your fertility? Somehow, I really doubt that the men that date women with fake breasts would give up their significant others for a girl with naturally large breasts, which are often pendulous and so far from the "beauty ideal" of rock-hard halved-cantaloupes that implants provide that men seem to like fake breasts, and no guarantees of increased fertility, more than women with large hips and naturally large breasts.

Any more commenters want to whip out the logical fallacies? I'm on a roll.

You know you just used "feminine" as an insult, right? That doesn't make me want to take you seriously.

Men aren't supposed to be feminine. It's not an insult to point that out, sorry. Nor is it incorrect.

Is it an insult to say a male doesn't have a uterus?

You really need to work on assumptions.

Being a self-identified feminist doesn't suddenly make you smarter than everyone, or psychic. You aren't nearly as bright as you think you are.

Don't attempt to divine the intent of what I say again. You're quite bad at it.

I made no insult. An observation is not an insult. Boys that wear nail polish appear feminine.

Out come the teeth and the accusation that we're misogynist. At least we did not use "feminine" as an insult

Point is, if you say that women should be making the choices that YOU agree with, not the ones they agree with, you're trying to force your views on them, and that's misogynist.

You can say that we are visual and want to attract mates all you want, but you have not provided any sort of factual evidence on how the deliberate mutilation of the human body is something coded into our genome.

Again, trying to be knee jerk, and saying "mutilation", doesn't help your cause. It makes you look overly emotional and reactionary. Point is, humans attract mates visually, through physical traits.

Attempting to enhance traits that potential mates are attracted to is an extension of that.

I'm sorry if you don't like that, but you can't exactly force people to date people they aren't attracted to physically, just to satisfy your sense of fairness.

doing everything in the interests of making themselves sexually available and attractive to men.

I don't know why it offends feminists SO badly that women might want to be attractive to men.

It's like you're completely opposed to the concept of physical attraction.

Again, would you rather force men to have physical relationships with women they are repulsed by, because you're obviously feeling threatened by men going after attractive women?

Somehow, I really doubt that the men that date women with fake breasts

Can you slip any man-hate in here? I love how you single men out like this, as if there's a specific sect of big bad evil men that go around only dating women with fake breasts.

You remind me of the kind of feminist that would approach a white man in public, and scream "FETISHIZER!!!!" at him, if he dared have an Asian girlfriend.

Also, how in the hell are fake breasts supposed to enhance your fertility?

They wouldn't, obviously. Point is, if the unconscious part of the brain associates "large breasts=fertile=good mate", having large fake breasts would provoke the same unconscious response.

I'm on a roll.

No, you really aren't. You're making terrible arguments, grounded in your emotional state (obvious, by how incensed you get on the topic), and doing a bad job of debate.

I have no idea why you think that you get to take the moral high ground after whipping out "feminine" like it's an insult. What the fuck does painting your nails have to do with having a uterus? I'm going to guess absolutely nothing. Which means that males can paint their nails all they please.

I'm sensing some misogyny here (looking like a woman is bad!), some homophobia (you don't have a uterus, don't paint your nails homo!), and some rigid gender roles (women paint their nails, men cannot, shame on those that break the mold!).

Also, the site in question is clearly heteronormative. Meaning, of course, that the people looking at naked women to pay them for getting fake boobies are men. Which makes sense, because most people that date women and look at porn happen to be men.

#1, you don't even know what "homophobia" means. Get a dictionary. Using that statement is highly insulting to people with ACTUAL phobias.

#2, telling a man not to act like/dress like/groom like a woman, because they aren't a woman, isn't "homophobic". Nor did I say "homo".

Maybe if you'd slide off that soapbox, and realize that the attitude of "I MUST TAKE EVERYTHING TO EXTREME CONCLUSION AND BE AS REACTIONARY AS POSSIBLE" just makes you look, well, ridiculous. Laughable, even.

and some rigid gender roles (women paint their nails, men cannot, shame on those that break the mold!).

You're not even trying, really.

Amazingly enough, the species has two genders! Crazy! I know you want some ideal feminist paradise where no one can tell what the other gender is, and no one has anything to identify themselves with, but, surprise surprise, almost every single heterosexual woman wants a man that looks like one, and almost every single heterosexual male wants a woman that looks like one.

Also, the site in question is clearly heteronormative.

Using neologisms meant to make a ridiculous political statement renders what you say pointless.

The entire word is meant to somehow demonize heterosexuality, as if it's somehow not normal. News flash: Hetero is normal. For one who likes to say "What nature intended", well, that's what hetero is. We're a binary gender species that reproduces sexually.

When less than 10% of the entire earth's population is gay, it's quite forgivable to not address every statement with an addendum for gay people.

To say otherwise is just to be annoyingly overly-PC.

Also, nobody's forcing anyone to do anything. We're all for shaming people for treating women like pieces of meat.

Ah, but you're NEVER for shaming women, for anything!

Funny, that. I could say "I'm sensing some misandry here".

You, however, like to shame those-lacking-a-uterus from doing stereotypically female things in a fit of misogyny and homophobia.

You make me laugh.

Especially because you think you're some kind of an expert on what people think.

You aren't. You apparently don't know anything at all. It's not your place to tell me what I'm thinking, or the intents I have when I speak. Don't do it. I'll ignore you and just laugh if you try it again.

It's interesting, feminism is one of the only movements where it seems it's your goal to drive off as much support as possible. You almost seem as though you have to make certain you're disliked, in order to remain relevant. Why, if people liked feminism, you couldn't sit in the corner and scream "EVERYONE HATES WOMEN OMG".

It's interesting, feminism is one of the only movements where it seems it's your goal to drive off as much support as possible. You almost seem as though you have to make certain you're disliked, in order to remain relevant. Why, if people liked feminism, you couldn't sit in the corner and scream "EVERYONE HATES WOMEN OMG".

It's interesting that some of the first statements you made on this blog were about how feminists (not just a select few; if that was your meaning, you did not see it fit to make it clear) hate men, and other such nonsense that is just not true of the majority of feminists.

How is that driving off support? You baffle me, Ennui.

And once again, I am playing the comment police, and I sugges that people stop engaging in Ennui, because name calling and the like will get us nowhere, and I think that is why he spends so much time here.

Do not indulge him.

**sits back, prepares for "you don't like it when people disagree with you, you feminist who assumes you can read my mind!!" backlash from Ennui**

If you endlessly attack males (as the person I was replying to was doing), or attack people in general, or, instead of taking a statement at it's face, you instead tell a person what they're thinking, or try to tell them you know more than they do about their own thoughts...well, it frustrates people, and makes them not want to associate with you or your causes.

and other such nonsense that is just not true of the majority of feminists.

Do you know the majority of feminists?

because name calling and the like will get us nowhere, and I think that is why he spends so much time here.

Again, you make a blanket statement about feminism in general because of what one person says on this blog.

What's your point? If she's a blogger here, obviously you support and encourage her viewpoint, and by that, are complicit in it.

If that is how you define the worth of causes, then I don't see how you could find a single one worthwhile.

I define the worth of a cause by A: how it personally affects me, B: how I generally feel about it, and C: how it's presented.

For instance, I could never possibly support PETA based on their actions and the way they present their viewpoint.

If you want people to support you, and attack the very people you want to support you, or endlessly tell them they're wrong or broken or somehow disordered for not thinking exactly like you, they aren't going to be real willing to support you.